Also known as: roughly proportionate
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A standard requiring that government conditions on land-use permits demanding dedication of land or access rights be related in both nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development. The government bears the burden of making an individualized determination supporting that relationship.
Robert Rivera sought permits to enlarge his hardware store. The city approved only after requiring dedication of a strip for a public greenway and bike path. No findings connected the width or location of the strip to any added traffic or drainage from the expansion. The condition failed the rough proportionality standard.
Rajesh Rao applied for permits to build new dormitories on college land. The city required dedication of a creek-side strip for a public greenway plus a campus-wide bike path easement. The city supplied no individualized analysis linking the scope of those demands to the dorm project's specific traffic or runoff effects. The conditions violated rough proportionality.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rita Russell sought approval to replace a small motel with a large resort. The city conditioned the permit on dedicating a sixty-foot oceanfront strip for a public promenade and granting permanent access corridors. The city offered no findings showing the size of the strip matched the resort's added congestion or shoreline impacts. The demand failed rough proportionality.
Raymond Ramos applied to expand a riverside factory. The town approved only after requiring dedication of a fifty-foot strip for a public greenway and fishing path. The town produced no findings tying the strip's width or public use to the expansion's runoff or traffic effects. The condition failed rough proportionality.
Regina Robinson sought approval for a twenty-five-lot subdivision. The city conditioned the permit on dedicating two prime lots for a public arts plaza and building an oversized boulevard with extra bike lanes. The city's own traffic study showed only minor impacts, yet the exactions far exceeded those projections. The conditions failed rough proportionality.
The government bears the burden of making an individualized determination that the exaction is roughly proportional in nature and extent to the projected impact of the proposed development.
Supporting sources
No. The standard requires only a reasonable relationship in both nature and extent, not precise mathematical equivalence.
Supporting sources
The condition fails the rough proportionality requirement and constitutes an unconstitutional taking unless the city pays just compensation.
Supporting sources
Nexus asks whether the exaction shares a logical connection with a legitimate public interest. Rough proportionality asks whether the scope of the exaction matches the degree of the development's impact.
Supporting sources
…city had demonstrated the required "essential nexus," the city's requirements would still constitute a taking unless they are roughly proportional to the impact of the proposed development. We have not previously elaborated on the required degree of connection between the exactions imposed by the city and the projected impacts of the…